The Prey: Silence in the Name of God

2013, Religion  -   58 Comments
Ratings: 8.68/10 from 87 users.

One day in 1980 two priests came to Spotorno, Italy... two young priests. They soon began arranging some activities for children. Francesco Zanardi was among those children who took part in those activities. That is how he started to attend the Spotorno parish church. He liked Father Carlo very much, who was like an actual father to him. Father Carlo provided him a room in the basement of the parish so Francesco could spend his time there.

Sadly in 1982 a third priest came to Spotorno. His name was Father Nello Giraudo and the children soon noticed that there was something wrong with this person. Francesco experienced his first abuse in the basement of the parish. It happened to him so many times... and to almost 50 other victims in Spotorno. They were all his age and they were all abused over a ten year period. That's a huge figure since there are 5,000 inhabitants there. It means that Father Nello managed to abuse almost all teenagers there.

Italy is the symbol of the Catholic church. Vatican City, the smallest independent state in the world, is situated right in the heart of Rome. The Holy See is the sovereign of Vatican City and it's an absolute monarchy under the Pope. Italy is the country which is conditioned more than any other by the presence of the church. Political, social, and economic choices, as well as everything else in Italy are deeply influenced by the church.

The pedophilia scandal that involved the Catholic clergy in the entire world didn't really blow up in Italy. One of the major problems is that there's been a reticence to actually deal with the problem. There's been a slowness to recognize that there is a problem and there's also a culture of silence and shame. On the other hand the clergy is convinced that there is a tendency to belittle the church since it still has a lot of followers. According to them there is an attempt to scatter the church as much as possible.

More great documentaries

58 Comments / User Reviews

  1. m

    please dont tell me those deft kids dont deserve it..they are deft...I could only be so lucky our priest growing up just touched little girls.

  2. LISA3347

    You know it comes a time when the PARENTS must take responsibility for this - this is not the case here but this has been COMMON KNOWLEDGE for YEARS - all over the WORLD there are MANY films just like this from other towns, counties and villages where Priest RAPED children for years. - who in their right mind is still going or taking their children to these churches?

  3. hanorabrennan

    Isn't religion a fool's game and so feckin' depressing?

  4. Dan Courtney

    I thought the documentary was very well done, but I couldn't help notice the irony of a woman wearing a hijab (Muslim?) criticizing the Catholic Church for abusing children. In much of the Islamic world boys are used for sex by men and it's considered perfectly normal. This will be a better world when all these myth based institutions collapse.

    1. Maxine Godfrey

      collapse might be too strong a sensation -- fade away might be better in the long run. but, yes, certainly.

  5. Jon

    Peace on Earth according to the vision of Old Testament prophet Isaiah is quite specific about the issue. Peace cannot be limited to the absence of war among countries. It must exist too within communities as peace and order and the absence of crime and violence.This cannot happen unless the each individual unit of society is enlightened.

    The key to peace according to Isaiah is the widespread and abundance Knowledge of God. Check out the passage below for yourself: Thus if we do not want violence in our homes and neighborhood then we need to start from within and discover the greatness of God.

    In contrast,we are victims to intensified government campaign to create an world environment void of the Knowledge of God. Thus institutionalized corruption and social decay are getting worse and the danger of destructive warfare seem to fill the Earth nowadays.

    Isaiah 11:6-9
    New American Standard Bible (NASB)

    6 And the wolf will dwell with the lamb,
    And the leopard will lie down with the young goat,
    And the calf and the young lion [a]and the fatling together;
    And a little boy will lead them.
    7 Also the cow and the bear will graze,
    Their young will lie down together,
    And the lion will eat straw like the ox.
    8 The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra,
    And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den.
    9 They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain,
    For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord
    As the waters cover the sea.

    1. chris

      thats a perfectly good definition of peace but "because isaiah said so" is some pretty lame reasoning. there are lots of perfectly good reasons to be a good person in a godless world and just saying any christian who does something terrible isnt a "real" christian is a serious cop out. they really believe in god but do terrible things anyway so clearly knowledge of his presence isnt the deciding factor in our behaviour but there are plenty of things in the bible that everyone should get behind ( the non hateful values ) my favorite is do unto others as you would have done unto yourself, people are a lot clearer in thought when they are haappy and not under duress so wouldnt make sense that peace and equality would lead to a belief in god and not the other way around? and whats with this passage :P if ya take it literally half the shit dies but the last two lines might mean something metaphorically except waters are the sea not covering it so..

    2. Jon

      Prophets utter the Word of God as they describe their visions and inspirations. In this case Isaiah acts as a messenger rather than a giver of the visual inspiration. This is basically the reason why Scriptures are collectively called the Word.

    3. a_no_n

      Do you know who else claims to utter the words of God...Charlatans and lunatics.

    4. Jon

      No wonder you are busy posting on this thread.

  6. Jon

    If people would review Catholicism, then it would discover the compromises it made to live in harmony with the barbaric tribes that populate the surroundings of the old Roman City.

    Realize that Constantine removed the persecution of the faith among the Romans under his government. However, Catholicism is not the same as the faith that remained in Constantinople, which used to be the Eastern Orthodox Church. When the old city of Rome was abandoned by the central government, the barbarians sieged it and have come to dominate the Western Church for hundreds of years in what we call the Dark Ages.

    Barbarianism is just like the modern day atheism. They have no idea of the Truth about God and his ways. This barbarianism dominated the Western World during the two World Wars too. I suppose the criminal behavior of the priests in this film is a demonstration of the lack of fear of God also, thus barbarianism is the root cause of the problem. If these people had been real Christians, none of these would happen.

    1. dave

      you are a fool and an i*iot, there is no god. it is a man-made concept to assist the feeble minded deal with the reality of a finite existence, and faith in any deity is merely the first sign of mental illness.

    2. chris

      if your mean to christians and show no patients or compassion how do you expect to get anywhere with them? no one likes an a**hole right or wrong

    3. Dan Courtney

      Dude... you can't be serious. The Dark Ages were when the Catholic Church ran every aspect of society. Those that weren't pious enough, or would dare to actual use reason and evidence to explain the world (aka science) were tortured and killed. The dictatorship that is the Church has been overcome by those brave enough to resist its tyranny. This documentary shows why dictatorships like the Catholic Church, and unaccountable to the people, are so corrupt... its their nature.

      It's atheists that are standing up to the dangerous group think that is religion, and they're working to build a society based on respect and dignity for humans, not reverence for a mythical slave master.

    4. Jon

      The dark ages happened after the Western Church was abandoned by Romans to the unruly barbaric influences that surrounded the city. Rome never really conquered these barbaric tribes and after Constantine moved the capital to present day Turkey, the whole Western Church was thought to have died.

      Slowly, Christianity took root in the places where mighty Rome was weak to conquer. The word of God was mightier than the Roman sword and soon, these barbarians who never assimilated into the Roman Civilization became the Holy Roman Empire.

      However take note that Christianity was crucified by these barbarians. The pope had to adapt and even consolidated its influence by declaring a Holy Roman Empire composed of rowdy, unwary and violent tribes who perpetually fought to the death with each other.

      A lot of compromises with Christianity had been made to live with the barbaric influences. Finally, when the Christian church was fortified from within and acted higher than any of the then Holy Roman Empire kingdoms or fiefdoms, the Western Church underwent a Renaissance.

      Note that the Dark Ages started with the sacking of Rome and ended with the rebuilding of the old city mainly by the wealthy popes who came to realize the need to put God foremost. It was the Christian religion that removed the dark ages when it gained an upper hand over the barbaric influences and not the other way around.

      What we now herald as Western Civilization would be nothing if we trace it to the fragmented barbaric tribes that won't cooperate with the Romans. What made Western Civilization potent is Christianity.

    5. Dan Courtney

      That must be Catholic School history, because the dark ages refers to a period from the sixth to the thirteenth centuries, after the power vacuum left by the fall of the Roman Empire was filled by the Church. There's no doubt that a strong central authority can stabilize society (Iraq was stable under Sadam), but the monopoly on power also brings corruption. The Church was as corrupt and self-serving as perhaps any organization has ever been, and that culture of impunity still protects child predators in the Church today.

    6. Jon

      Catholics were corrupt because they were also barbaric. Christianity was a work in progress for everybody and persecutions, wars, famines and plagues purified Catholics. A third world war may just happen to finally purge the undesirables, and remove the chaff from the wheat.

      Look, read the Gospels and realize that the Good News is the Kingdom of God. Yet what is the Holy Roman Empire to you anyways? It is a collection of human kingdoms who politically dominated the religious.

    7. a_no_n

      The Holy Roman Empire was the Pope's attempts to re-establish the Roman Empire in the west through Charlamagne and place the papacy as the ultimate power in Europe.

      Oh great you're talking about purging the undesirables...So much for love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek.

    8. Jon

      There as a documentary about the Eastern Church and its conflict with the West. At one time period, the resentment of the West against the claim of the Eastern Orthodox that Catholics got a barbaric origin, led to the sacking of Constantinople.

      The Orthodox temples were looted by Catholics, which helped weaken the defense of Constantinople and this in-fighting among Christians permitted Islam to take over the city which what was once the seat of Eastern Orthodoxy.

    9. a_no_n

      yeah...about a thousand years later.

      Again, nothing whatsoever to do with your initial comment.

    10. a_no_n

      Yeah about a thousand years after the point you're initially talking about.

      The Western church didn't even officially come into existence in an official capacity until after the east/west schism. which didn't happen until about 700 years after Constantine died.

      Constantinople wouldn't fall to the muslims until 1453 another 700 years down the line from the schism

      You're bundling all of these events together when there's over a thousand years of history between the first event and the last!

      Finally, to say that the Catholics sacked Constantinople because they were upset the Greeks were calling them names is so ridiculous a claim that i'm starting to wonder if you're trolling me.

      But just in case you aren't:

      The fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople because it bought a fleet from the Doge of Venice to sail to Jerusalem on. But hadly a fraction of the numbers they hoped for turned up for the journey so the army found itself owing the Doge of Venice hundreds and thousands of pounds of gold and silver that they didn't have. So in order to make good of their debt they agreed to suport the Doges conquest of Constantinople in order to raise the money for the debt, establishing a short lived occupation that was eventually overthrown by the Romans.

    11. Jon

      According to History Channel Documentary episode on Rome hosted by Peter Weller, the consensus in the East was Christianity died in the West along with the disintegration of the City of Rome. The barbarians destroyed the water supply and without sufficient water, the city was abandoned. It became a place where brigands, outcasts and criminals thrived and settled.

      Fact is the Pope declared his sphere of influence as the Holy Roman Empire and made Charlemagne first HRE emperor after a timely rescue from what has become normal day to day barbaric violence. Note that a massive social cleansing had to be conducted before the city was recreated to be the center of the Catholic faith.

    12. a_no_n

      What are you on about? None of that is even vaguely correct.

      Constantine was the man who converted the Roman empire to Christianity in the first place!
      There was no organised church before Constantine!

      Christianity was also not crucified by the barbarians, most of them, including the Goths who you say sacked Rome, were themselves Christians, and didn't actually Sack Rome at all!

      The Christian religion also didn't end the dark ages. Christianity came to it's peak of power during that era.

      The Holy Roman empire also formed when Charlamagne conquered them and submitted to the Pope...The Holy Roman empire was given that name by the Pope that crowned Charlamagne! takes ten seconds to google this can you get it SO wrong?

    13. Jon

      It is amazing how fantastic your information or claim has clashed with reality. You are confused.

      Many documentaries in this site alone contradict your comment. The Western Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches got a history of rivalry that cannot be changed even if some hits in Google claim otherwise, as you declare.

      Today, this East-West church division is sustained by Russia and NATO countries, so that on-going history of the rivalry is self-evident.

    14. a_no_n

      True. But that's got nothing to do with anything that you originally claimed.

      You said that the dark ages began when the Romans abandoned Christianity by moving to Constantinople...even though that is literally impossible because there was no church before Constantinople.

      It's like you have no idea about the origins of your faith and are just guessing.


    15. Jon

      Constantine is acclaimed to make Christianity official in the empire. But his moving the capital from Rome to Constantinople created a power vacuum.

      The Western Church, that got the successor of Peter as head, was left prone to barbaric attacks. This unmade the city which according to the History Channel documentary hosted by Peter Weller shrunk in population from some 3 million to a few thousand. The City of Rome died as a result of the lack of Roman military presence in the old city. This condition lingered until the rebuilt of the old city during the Renaissance.

      Now do not confuse the city from the Christian faith. In the absence of sufficient population size, the old Roman capital was ruined and ceased to be a city.

      Christianity meanwhile flourished in the Eastern Church, which is also referred to as the Byzantine Empire. Years later we got proof that Christianity never died in the West as well, but was altered into the misnomer you refer to as the HRE.

  7. Eric Lawson

    Very good documentary. I was once Roman catholic. I have now switched to Atheist. This was one of the reasons i left and one of the reasons i switched.The whole affair is very upsetting and depressing !! Shame on the Catholic church !!!

  8. Kansas Devil

    The love of institution is not isolated to religion. No doubt there are other institutions where abuses and crimes are covered up in the name of protecting the institution. The same fundamental rationalizations are employed. Humans are good at deceiving themselves.

  9. Andrea

    I never went to Church and relieved for that. Positions of trust where dependents such as youth, psychiatric or psychological dependents, led to attracting those, who crave power. Also, ultimate power, corrupts. So those entering positions such as these, may become inspired into such behavior.

    Examples are religious entities with figureheads.
    Education entities with teachers, instructors.
    Institutes for psychiatric patients involving caregivers, nurses and doctors.
    Respite centers, children's and adolescent homes and rest homes where caregivers, nurses, and doctors are involved.

    The religious entities had forms of secrecy, that further facilitated abusive behaviors.

  10. Sa Ka

    Talk about islam....
    muhammad "the prophet" married Aisha when she was six and ravaged her at 9. islam calls it "consummated the marriage". When they are 9 you ravage them, not consummate the marriage!
    Pedophilia is very deep rooted.
    These f*ckers were following the teachings of hadith, not of the bible.

    1. dmxi

      sad but true.....remote(not just meant geographically) muslim faith
      based 'nations' still execute such laws which makes them easy to target
      as foes to our freedo(o)m & helps painting all muslims as enemies to
      our every day life (by creating 'terrorism' as explanation for
      full-blown surveillance)....but that doesn't excuse such
      atrocities,still,every nation should liberate themselves & not be
      forced into democracy which is just plain hypocrisy!

    2. chris

      they are not even being forced into real democracy :P

    3. a_no_n

      you do realise that back then Christians did exactly the same thing right?

      They all married off their children at ridiculously young ages because that was the done thing.

      Also the bible totally condones child rape.
      Judges 21:10 shows God ordering the israelites to take all the virgin girls of a conquered city for old do you reckon those virgin girls were?
      Numbers 31:7 goes exactly the same way!

    4. reaseAable .

      Check the context. There appears to be the mention of women too; these were for marrying

    5. a_no_n

      nope, i'm afraid not God tells them to slaughter the women both times.

      They spare the women and the children, which annoys God because he gave them strict instructions to kill them all, eventually he relents and says they can keep the virgins for themselves.

    6. DougDeGrave

      The Abrahamic religions are all guilty of all the same horrendous, sadistic and twisted acts.

    7. Alliyah Brown

      Aisha was not that young. Please see the evidence below.

      Age of Aisha at time of marriage with Holy Prophet Muhammad

      It is believed on the authority of some Hadith reports that the marriage ceremony (known as nikah, amounting to betrothal) of Aisha with the Holy Prophet Muhammad took place when she was six years of age, and that she joined the Holy Prophet as his wife three years later at the age of nine. We quote below from two such reports in Bukhari.

      “It is reported from Aisha that she said: The Prophet entered into marriage with me when I was a girl of six … and at the time [of joining his household] I was a girl of nine years of age.”

      “Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed [alone] for two years or so. He married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.” [3]

      As to the authenticity of these reports, it may be noted that the compilers of the books of Hadith did not apply the same stringent tests when accepting reports relating to historical matters as they did before accepting reports relating to the practical teachings and laws of Islam. The reason is that the former type of report was regarded as merely of academic interest while the latter type of report had a direct bearing on the practical duties of a Muslim and on what was allowed to them and what was prohibited. Thus the occurrence of reports such as the above about the marriage of Aisha in books of Hadith, even in Bukhari, is not necessarily a proof of their credibility.

      Determination of the true age of Aisha

      It appears that Maulana Muhammad Ali was the first Islamic scholar directly to challenge the notion that Aisha was aged six and nine, respectively, at the time of her nikah and consummation of marriage. This he did in, at least, the following writings: his English booklet Prophet of Islam, his larger English book Muhammad, the Prophet, and in the footnotes in his voluminous Urdu translation and commentary of Sahih Bukhari entitled Fadl-ul-Bari, these three writings being published in the 1920s and 1930s. In the booklet Prophet of Islam, which was later incorporated in 1948 as the first chapter of his book Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad, he writes in a lengthy footnote as follows:

      “A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled The Moon, the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqat that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.” [4] (Bolding is mine.)

      To facilitate understanding dates of these events, please note that it was in the tenth year of the Call, i.e. the tenth year after the Holy Prophet Muhammad received his calling from God to his mission of prophethood, that his wife Khadija passed away, and the approach was made to Abu Bakr for the hand of his daughter Aisha. The hijra or emigration of the Holy Prophet to Madina took place three years later, and Aisha came to the household of the Holy Prophet in the second year after hijra. So if Aisha was born in the year of the Call, she would be ten years old at the time of the nikah and fifteen years old at the time of the consummation of the marriage.

      Later research

      Research subsequent to the time of Maulana Muhammad Ali has shown that she was older than this. An excellent short work presenting such evidence is the Urdu pamphlet Rukhsati kai waqt Sayyida Aisha Siddiqa ki umar (‘The age of Lady Aisha at the time of the start of her married life’) by Abu Tahir Irfani.[4a] Points 1 to 3 below have been brought to light in this pamphlet.

      1. The famous classical historian of Islam, Ibn Jarir Tabari, wrote in his ‘History’:

      “In the time before Islam, Abu Bakr married two women. The first was Fatila daughter of Abdul Uzza, from whom Abdullah and Asma were born. Then he married Umm Ruman, from whom Abdur Rahman and Aisha were born. These four were born before Islam.” [5]

      Being born before Islam means being born before the Call.

      2. The compiler of the famous Hadith collection Mishkat al-Masabih, Imam Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, who died 700 years ago, has also written brief biographical notes on the narrators of Hadith reports. He writes under Asma, the older daughter of Abu Bakr:

      “She was the sister of Aisha Siddiqa, wife of the Holy Prophet, and was ten years older than her. … In 73 A.H. … Asma died at the age of one hundred years.” [6]

      (Go here to see an image of the full entry in Urdu.)

      This would make Asma 28 years of age in 1 A.H., the year of the Hijra, thus making Aisha 18 years old in 1 A.H. So Aisha would be 19 years old at the time of the consummation of her marriage, and 14 or 15 years old at the time of her nikah. It would place her year of birth at four or five years before the Call.

      3. The same statement is made by the famous classical commentator of the Holy Quran, Ibn Kathir, in his book Al-bidayya wal-nihaya:

      “Asma died in 73 A.H. at the age of one hundred years. She was ten years older than her sister Aisha.” [7]

      Apart from these three evidences, which are presented in the Urdu pamphlet referred to above, we also note that the birth of Aisha being a little before the Call is consistent with the opening words of a statement by her which is recorded four times in Bukhari. Those words are as follows:

      “Ever since I can remember (or understand things) my parents were following the religion of Islam.” [8]

      This is tantamount to saying that she was born sometime before her parents accepted Islam but she can only remember them practising Islam. No doubt she and her parents knew well whether she was born before or after they accepted Islam, as their acceptance of Islam was such a landmark event in their life which took place just after the Holy Prophet received his mission from God. If she had been born after they accepted Islam it would make no sense for her to say that she always remembered them as following Islam. Only if she was born before they accepted Islam, would it make sense for her to say that she can only remember them being Muslims, as she was too young to remember things before their conversion. This is consistent with her being born before the Call, and being perhaps four or five years old at the time of the Call, which was also almost the time when her parents accepted Islam.

      Two further evidences cited by Maulana Muhammad Ali

      In the footnotes of his Urdu translation and commentary of Sahih Bukhari, entitled Fadl-ul-Bari, Maulana Muhammad Ali had pointed out reports of two events which show that Aisha could not have been born later than the year of the Call. These are as follows.

      1. The above mentioned statement by Aisha in Bukhari, about her earliest memory of her parents being that they were followers of Islam, begins with the following words in its version in Bukhari’s Kitab-ul-Kafalat. We quote this from the English translation of Bukhari by M. Muhsin Khan:

      “Since I reached the age when I could remember things, I have seen my parents worshipping according to the right faith of Islam. Not a single day passed but Allah’s Apostle visited us both in the morning and in the evening. When the Muslims were persecuted, Abu Bakr set out for Ethiopia as an emigrant.” [9]

      Commenting on this report, Maulana Muhammad Ali writes:

      “This report sheds some light on the question of the age of Aisha. … The mention of the persecution of Muslims along with the emigration to Ethiopia clearly shows that this refers to the fifth or the sixth year of the Call. … At that time Aisha was of an age to discern things, and so her birth could not have been later than the first year of the Call.” [10]

      Again, this would make her more than fourteen at the time of the consummation of her marriage.

      2. There is a report in Sahih Bukhari as follows:

      “On the day (of the battle) of Uhud when (some) people retreated and left the Prophet, I saw Aisha daughter of Abu Bakr and Umm Sulaim, with their robes tucked up so that the bangles around their ankles were visible hurrying with their water skins (in another narration it is said, ‘carrying the water skins on their backs’). Then they would pour the water in the mouths of the people, and return to fill the water skins again and came back again to pour water in the mouths of the people.” [11]

      Maulana Muhammad Ali writes in a footnote under this report:

      “It should also be noted that Aisha joined the Holy Prophet’s household only one year before the battle of Uhud. According to the common view she would be only ten years of age at this time, which is certainly not a suitable age for the work she did on this occasion. This also shows that she was not so young at this time.” [12]

      If, as shown in the previous section above, Aisha was nineteen at the time of the consummation of her marriage, then she would be twenty years old at the time of the battle of Uhud. It may be added that on the earlier occasion of the battle of Badr when some Muslim youths tried, out of eagerness, to go along with the Muslim army to the field of battle, the Holy Prophet Muhammad sent them back on account of their young age (allowing only one such youngster, Umair ibn Abi Waqqas, to accompany his older brother the famous Companion Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas). It seems, therefore, highly unlikely that if Aisha was ten years old the Holy Prophet would have allowed her to accompany the army to the field of battle.

      We conclude from all the evidence cited above that Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) was nineteen years old when she joined the Holy Prophet as his wife in the year 2 A.H., the nikah or betrothal having taken place five years previously.

    8. 0Z0

      Let's stay on the TOPIC shall we?

    9. Guest

      Everyone was doing that back then...even Christians.

  11. EastCoast Au

    Abuse is
    Abuse. No need to dress it up.

  12. dmxi

    the perfect surrounding,for evil minds to prey on innocent,is the
    make-up of faith based illusionary haven that functions like a magnet to
    faith seeking uncorrupted souls with attached trust to anything that
    resembles the uniform of righteousness!

  13. Martin Ellacott

    I don't want to hear Muslims criticizing anyone on human rights or how to treat others. Their Islamic theocracies are violent, hateful, abominable places to live.....

    1. Vlatko

      Of course... shoot the messenger. Don't look at the facts. But that doesn't make them any less true.

    2. dmxi

      your hate is deep towards muslims...which out of personal experience may be causal but excludes your horizon towards universal knowledge... black & white pictures lack the beautiful colors that life presents us with.911 changed everything... mmh?

      If you just mean islamic theocracies, thats ok but you have to emphasize that & not muslims in general as that isn't fitting.....imo. Historically, we owe them more than we like to express or even admit.

    3. Martin Ellacott

      Admittedly, I am biased. My feelings on the matter are supported on a daily basis by the Media, reporting on violent, murderous, inane Islamic activity throughout the World.

    4. dmxi

      your honesty deserves admiration & stating your source even more....ask yourself 'why' you are being bombarded with such information & the nearer you will come to actual news.
      thanks for the 'like' as that shows how wrong i was
      with my 'excludes your horizon towards universal knowledge... black & white
      pictures lack the beautiful colors that life presents us with.' quote;
      meaning,you accept 'racism' & 'bias' as flawed.
      i tip my hat,sir,for your honesty & i'm looking forward to future debates!
      with regards................dmxi

    5. Martin Ellacott

      I (we) are bombarded by the mainstream Media.....I like to be informed and always seek out alternative sources of the News to try and get a balanced approach to the is difficult. At 73, I am a product of my generation and yet consider myself fairly liberal in my various outlooks.....many of my peers....not so liberal.

    6. Fabien L

      We are also bombarded with Americans going on crazy shooting sprees in malls, theaters and schools, do you hate all Americans because a few are deranged people? How many Islamists killed American presidents? Maybe you should be worried about your neighbours more than you are about strangers on the other side of the globe, they probably pose a much bigger threat to your life.

    7. Martin Ellacott

      M. L'Amour.....naif?....not I.

    8. Fabien L

      I can't answer a question in the form of one word. Naive about what?

    9. DougDeGrave

      Sounds like the Jew media has done a helluva job on you.

    10. Fabien L

      How will they ever get rid of their violent, hateful and abominable Islamic theocracies if you don't even allow them the right to criticize anyone on human rights or how to treat others?
      What you wrote is exactly what their Islamic theocracies want.

    11. winston

      >I don't want to hear Muslims criticizing anyone.. Their Islamic >theocracies.."
      Generalize much? You might wanna consider your own nation's atrocious human rights record, as sit up there.

    12. dmxi

      see his reply to mine (beneath) & don't give him to much 'stick' as we all collect knowledge on the path of irritating
      wisdom,or not?

    13. Martin Ellacott

      Canada's human rights are not the topic...perhaps at a more appropriate time......stay focused.

    14. chris

      the f*ck dude double standards aren't cool and try not to be part of that holier than though apathy that stops us as a nation from getting our s*it together and leading by example

  14. ~Oliver B Koslik Esq

    "Codes of silence enable crime".

    I've seen many article where the police have headlined that same phrase. As members of a community seem to enjoy hoarding information from pertinent investigations...pathologically

    Great Doc!
    +1 TDF

  15. Adrian Kelly

    Enjoyed this documentry. I'd like to bring the viewers attention to one snap shot in this film. It appears at 41.19 and if you are watchful and alert, you will see a graphic image on the side of a church which sums up the entire subject of the discussion.